Don´t forget Lewis never won at WDC against a WDC driver. He beat Massa, the guy who overspun 5 times at Silvertsone and the guy Alonso is retiring from F1. Sorry but this season the general opinion is the driver won was the "less bad" instead of "the best".

Vettel won 2 WDC, against Alonso/Ferrari his first one and against Button/McLaren his second one. Beating his teammate battle too (a great/fast M.Webber), a thing Lewis never had with Kova...

How biased an opinion could you present ? Lewis only won a WDC against Massa, who Alonso is killing, but Vettel won against Alonso, therefore Vettel is better ? Who the bloody hell do you think was Lewis's teammate who he matched in his rookie season ? Your argument is total rubbish. You have no right to speak for the general opinion when you are known as one of the most blinkered and biased people on this board.

How biased an opinion could you present ? Lewis only won a WDC against Massa, who Alonso is killing, but Vettel won against Alonso, therefore Vettel is better ? Who the bloody hell do you think was Lewis's teammate who he matched in his rookie season ? Your argument is total rubbish. You have no right to speak for the general opinion when you are known as one of the most blinkered and biased people on this board.

What's wrong with 7th?
It reaches a point in which they are all great beyond doubt and putting them in order becomes splitting hairs according to perceptions and opinions.
It doesn't mean that the 1st is seven times better or is seven times more accomplished.

You say that as if Vettel is the only one who is too high in the rankings. Is Moss top 6 material? Gilles Villeneuve definately not that high up IMO, Lewis Hamilton above Jack Brabham, not for me.Yes Vettel is a few higher up than I think he ought to be but the reaction seems to be very bitter, as if he has no place in the top 20 at all. Poor show really

As for Sir Jackie Stewart, you look at his profile and think of how can 6 drivers have bettered that? Now, we're in serious G.O.A.T. territory.

You say that as if Vettel is the only one who is too high in the rankings. Is Moss top 6 material? Gilles Villeneuve definately not that high up IMO, Lewis Hamilton above Jack Brabham, not for me.Yes Vettel is a few higher up than I think he ought to be but the reaction seems to be very bitter, as if he has no place in the top 20 at all. Poor show really

As for Sir Jackie Stewart, you look at his profile and think of how can 6 drivers have bettered that? Now, we're in serious G.O.A.T. territory.

A few?

As for Stewart, he started F1 quite similarly to Hamilton in the sense the 1965 BRM was definite contender, even if it was beaten by the skill of Clark (Spence, Clark's teammate finished 8th at years end). That said, 5 podiums in your first 7 races is good by any standards.

You can't fault Jackie for the complete dominance he demonstrated in 1969 and 1971, but you must remember the person who finished 2nd in 1971 was Peterson in a March that no one else could score points with. During his later Tyrrell years however Cevert was almost always a match for Jackie's speed, but remained loyal and behind. So with the death of Cevert it became difficult to judge the overall quality of the 1971-1973 Stewart, given the cars he had.

That Stewart was so consistent and at the front says more about his mechanical sympathy than outright speed. In 1971 and 1973 he only had a total of 3 DNFs! Crazy in those days. I do believe he was fast, but there were equally fast people who destroyed their cars in the process of racing against him, while Stewart continued. But that is how you win in motorsport. No one else in that period could run at the front week in week out, in 1974 there were 14 different podium scorers.

Murray said this in 2006, when Michael was just ahead of the Brazilian GP - and at that time there was probably the best moment to call him G.O.A.T.

Time has passed, 2010 and 2011 have come and gone, and possibly perceptions have changed also for Murray.

I honestly don't think that since then has happened anything that might have changed his perception. Still, my point with that video was that Schummacher would surely be on the list, wich was your initial question. If he'll appear as the nr 1, I guess we´ll find out in due time.

As for Stewart, he started F1 quite similarly to Hamilton in the sense the 1965 BRM was definite contender, even if it was beaten by the skill of Clark (Spence, Clark's teammate finished 8th at years end). That said, 5 podiums in your first 7 races is good by any standards.

You can't fault Jackie for the complete dominance he demonstrated in 1969 and 1971, but you must remember the person who finished 2nd in 1971 was Peterson in a March that no one else could score points with. During his later Tyrrell years however Cevert was almost always a match for Jackie's speed, but remained loyal and behind. So with the death of Cevert it became difficult to judge the overall quality of the 1971-1973 Stewart, given the cars he had.

That Stewart was so consistent and at the front says more about his mechanical sympathy than outright speed. In 1971 and 1973 he only had a total of 3 DNFs! Crazy in those days. I do believe he was fast, but there were equally fast people who destroyed their cars in the process of racing against him, while Stewart continued. But that is how you win in motorsport. No one else in that period could run at the front week in week out, in 1974 there were 14 different podium scorers.

I think that Stewart sort of retired "too early". For very understandable reasons, of course, but it would have been great to see him drive an another 3 years to help us maybe judge better just how good he was.

I think it's a fair enough position for Stewart, undoubtedly he carried the mantle of safety forwards and made the most of his championship opportunities.

I can't agree with anyone who says he retired too early, he had seen many friends & rivals die, he'd won 3 titles, he'd had his own big shunts, his health had been so bad he basically missed 1972 and he was extremely wealthy with a young family. IMO even if he hadn't been thinking of retiring in 1973, Cevert's accident would have made his mind up.

I think it's a fair enough position for Stewart, undoubtedly he carried the mantle of safety forwards and made the most of his championship opportunities.

I can't agree with anyone who says he retired too early, he had seen many friends & rivals die, he'd won 3 titles, he'd had his own big shunts, his health had been so bad he basically missed 1972 and he was extremely wealthy with a young family. IMO even if he hadn't been thinking of retiring in 1973, Cevert's accident would have made his mind up.

You can't fault Jackie for the complete dominance he demonstrated in 1969 and 1971, but you must remember the person who finished 2nd in 1971 was Peterson in a March that no one else could score points with.

That's not true. A certain privateer scored some points as well and set a lap record at Monza in that tea tray March that remained the fastest lap ever in F1 for ages ;) And his teammates that year often had to compete with an Alfa Romeo engine that wasn't really competitive - just look at the results when Ronnie had that Alfa engine as well.

During his later Tyrrell years however Cevert was almost always a match for Jackie's speed, but remained loyal and behind. So with the death of Cevert it became difficult to judge the overall quality of the 1971-1973 Stewart, given the cars he had.

That Stewart was so consistent and at the front says more about his mechanical sympathy than outright speed. In 1971 and 1973 he only had a total of 3 DNFs! Crazy in those days. I do believe he was fast, but there were equally fast people who destroyed their cars in the process of racing against him, while Stewart continued. But that is how you win in motorsport. No one else in that period could run at the front week in week out, in 1974 there were 14 different podium scorers.

How much I liked Francois - that's a bit over the top. Remember that Jackie set 6 poles and won 6 GP's in 1971 (Cevert: 0 poles, 1 GP). Stewart's 1972 campaign was marred by an ulcer operation, not a nice thing to have midseason. In 1973 he still won 5 GP's and qualified 10-4 against Francois. Yes, Cevert got close to him e.g. at the 'Ring with a brilliant performance. But that was not a Fernando/Felipe show, Jackie was always in control.

It seems to me that the way he controlled those races in his later years have somehow painted a lasting image of a driver winning at the slowest possible speed. But let's not forget Jackie's superb campaigns in 1968/1969/1970! Losing the 1968 Belgian GP in the last lap, way out in front. Winning the Dutch GP far out in front in the pouring rain (sure, those Dunlop tyres helped). Winning the 1968 German GP more than 4 minutes ahead of anybody in fog and rain, maybe the greatest performance ever by any driver. And among his greatest feats IMHO is taking 3 poles early in the 1970 season in a March 701 that he in fact didn't like at all and was a real handful to drive.

He was as fast as anyone, but I guess the fate of so many good friends like Jimmy, Piers and Jochen urged him to develop himself more and more into a thinking driver later in his career.

I can't agree with anyone who says he retired too early, he had seen many friends & rivals die, he'd won 3 titles, he'd had his own big shunts, his health had been so bad he basically missed 1972 and he was extremely wealthy with a young family. IMO even if he hadn't been thinking of retiring in 1973, Cevert's accident would have made his mind up.

He'd already decided early in '73 that it was going to be his last year. And I think he'd done enough, on the track that is, to prove his worth as a driver. Watching him drive that Lola T-260 in 1971, an unruly car if ever there was one, was enough for me.

That's not true. A certain privateer scored some points as well and set a lap record at Monza in that tea tray March that remained the fastest lap ever in F1 for ages ;) And his teammates that year often had to compete with an Alfa Romeo engine that wasn't really competitive - just look at the results when Ronnie had that Alfa engine as well.

With Frank Williams no less. Well, I plead ignorance on that front. Still, 4 points is different to 34, and at every race Peterson faced someone with a Ford engined March and for the most part beat them.

How much I liked Francois - that's a bit over the top. Remember that Jackie set 6 poles and won 6 GP's in 1971 (Cevert: 0 poles, 1 GP). Stewart's 1972 campaign was marred by an ulcer operation, not a nice thing to have midseason. In 1973 he still won 5 GP's and qualified 10-4 against Francois. Yes, Cevert got close to him e.g. at the 'Ring with a brilliant performance. But that was not a Fernando/Felipe show, Jackie was always in control.

It seems to me that the way he controlled those races in his later years have somehow painted a lasting image of a driver winning at the slowest possible speed. But let's not forget Jackie's superb campaigns in 1968/1969/1970! Losing the 1968 Belgian GP in the last lap, way out in front. Winning the Dutch GP far out in front in the pouring rain (sure, those Dunlop tyres helped). Winning the 1968 German GP more than 4 minutes ahead of anybody in fog and rain, maybe the greatest performance ever by any driver. And among his greatest feats IMHO is taking 3 poles early in the 1970 season in a March 701 that he in fact didn't like at all and was a real handful to drive.

He was as fast as anyone, but I guess the fate of so many good friends like Jimmy, Piers and Jochen urged him to develop himself more and more into a thinking driver later in his career.

I mean, by 1973, Cevert was looking a match to Stewart, but Jackie was intent on retiring by that stage I guess. 1968 in Germany was legendary, and I do think his slower steadier and ultimately successful race pacing in later years coloured lasting memories of him. Peterson on the other hand never honestly changed and never won the WDC.

That's not true. A certain privateer scored some points as well and set a lap record at Monza in that tea tray March that remained the fastest lap ever in F1 for ages ;) And his teammates that year often had to compete with an Alfa Romeo engine that wasn't really competitive - just look at the results when Ronnie had that Alfa engine as well.

It may be slightly OT, but I am quite interested in you guys' perception of Peterson. How good was he? I wasn't around at the time so this may be a dumb question, but for all the talk of team orders in 1978 he was outqualified 11-3 by Andretti, who was usually then well-positioned to control the races. Could Ronnie really have won the 1978 title?

Like I said though, I don't profess to be much of an expert, so apologies if I'm being really ignorant here.

It may be slightly OT, but I am quite interested in you guys' perception of Peterson. How good was he? I wasn't around at the time so this may be a dumb question, but for all the talk of team orders in 1978 he was outqualified 11-3 by Andretti, who was usually then well-positioned to control the races. Could Ronnie really have won the 1978 title?

Like I said though, I don't profess to be much of an expert, so apologies if I'm being really ignorant here.

Good question, I thought he was very good, but I'm not sure if Ronnie could have won the '78 title, though he was contracted as number 2 to Mario, Andretti was no slouch behind the wheel and had better car devleopment skills. While he did win 2 races, there were occasions when Ronnie followed Andretti closely across the line when they finished 1-2 and you just knew team orders were in place, but had they been able to duke it out (which Chapman would never have allowed) I don't know what the outcome would have been. I still think Mario would have had the upper hand. Peterson while spectacular to watch and blindingly fast was also very hard on his cars, especially gearboxes. I liked him, he was a very personable and non assuming guy.

The best moment to call Schumacher G.O.A.T. would be right after your lobotomy.

Oh yes, how stupid do you have to be to call by far the most successful driver, who's won as many races and championships as Prost and Senna combined, the GOAT. How's that even plausible or logical in any way?

Oh yes, how stupid do you have to be to call by far the most successful driver, who's won as many races and championships as Prost and Senna combined, the GOAT. How's that even plausible or logical in any way?

Because on your logic Mr Blobby is greater than The Who, as the pink **** has had more number 1 hits.

It may be slightly OT, but I am quite interested in you guys' perception of Peterson. How good was he? I wasn't around at the time so this may be a dumb question, but for all the talk of team orders in 1978 he was outqualified 11-3 by Andretti, who was usually then well-positioned to control the races. Could Ronnie really have won the 1978 title?

IMHO: no way. But there have have quite a few -sometimes heated- discussions about this, especially on TNF....One of those threads: http://forums.autosp...amp;hl=PetersonBut just use the search function for other threads.

A possible view in very short: after 1977, when Mario already was the fastest guy around quite often in the Lotus 78, Andretti knew that 1978 would be his great opportunity and the 79 was a gem of a car in which he finally could deliver the goods. For quite a few years Mario's focus went from Indycars to F1 and back, and back again, but he knew this was his chance and he prepared himself like no other season.Lotus hadn't won a title since 1972 (after winning the WDC very regularly in the decade before that) so winning both the WDC and WCC in 1978 was a top priority. Ronnie was a rather late addition to the team IRC, just had to trust his talent but was simply on the backfoot at the start of the season. And let's not forget: Mario was simply superb and on the top of his form for almost the entire season.